Concealed Carry Law in Illinois Challenged - National Implications?

[ChanceMcCall]

https://www.pjstar.c...ate-weapons-law

Above is a link to an article in the Peoria Journal Star relating a suit challenging the way the concealed carry law was constructed in Illinois. The contention is that the law is unfair (although the article is vague about this) because of the costs of licensure and maybe other things as well.

I find it interesting because after the court ruling that set this in motion, I was urging pro-gun groups to drag out any legislation efforts so that by court ruling we would have ended up with constitutional carry by fiat. For some reason I could never fully understand, the very groups I was a member of were afraid to do that. In the end we gave away far too much in my opinion. The ability to legally carry in Chicago and some of the suburbs is difficult, if not impossible because of all the allowed limitations.

I would further contend that our concealed carry licensure excludes far too many people who do not have the money it takes to get a license. If the Peoria attorneys focus enough on that, I believe this case could end up successful which would be interesting because I think the permit system would change and that as the law was being rewritten, we could correct some of the give-a-ways in the original law.

Who knows where this will go? Certainly the Democrats who control Illinois are very anti gun and they will do all they can to stop any regaining of rights. But, concealed carry exists in Illinois not because of our pro gun organization working the legislature (not that they hadn't tried for years) but because of a court decision.

If this goes high enough in the court system, it could have national implications in many restrictive states.

 

[JTHunter]

Link failed.

 

[ChanceMcCall]

Link failed.

PEORIA — Two attorneys with the Peoria County Public Defender’s Office want a judge to throw out several weapons charges against their clients, saying they, too, have the right to defend themselves.

Chandra Justice and Mark Rose, both private attorneys who contract with the Public Defender’s Office, have filed a series of motions in several cases where their clients are facing the Class 4 felony of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. The motions contend the law is unconstitutional because it prohibits the average person from having a firearm outside of their home without the proper permits...
...

Peoria Journal Star https://www.pjstar.com/news/20181116/local-public-defenders-challenging-state-weapons-law

 

[armoredman]

Good luck. If this goes to SCOTUS, the chances are better than they were.

 

[CapnMac]

Seems like I keep seeing stories about challenges to concealed carry over issues with over-strictness.
None have very good sources, so, I've not really committed any to serious memory.

Fascinating argument, that carry laws ought only be as restrictive as the 2nd amendment.

 

[Armybrat]

SOTUS ruled that the poll tax for voting was unconstitutional decades ago, so I would hope they would decide that forcing law abiding citizens to pay fees to exercise our constitutional rights is also illegal.

 

[pdsmith505]

SOTUS ruled that the poll tax for voting was unconstitutional decades ago, so I would hope they would decide that forcing law abiding citizens to pay fees to exercise our constitutional rights is also illegal.

That would actually be the 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, which states:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), seems to be more applicable in this case. SCOTUS held that a state cannot impose a licencing requirement on the free exercise of religion (in this case, a Jehovah's Witness who was going door to door distributing religious pamphlets and books in return for donations). The court found that "This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution."

This seems interesting if SCOTUS ever determines that the 2A has, at it's core, a right to bear arms in public. It would seem that, once this core right is acknowledged, then a permit to carry, if allowed at all, could not have an associated cost.

Then again, I'm not a lawyer, and this is just a layman's perspective on how the law reads.